Karnataka High Court Upholds Discharge in Corruption Case Citing Key Procedural Flaws

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by the Lokayuktha Police, upholding a Special Judge's order discharging an accused from charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court found that significant procedural lapses during the investigation vitiated the proceedings, despite arguments that a bribe demand alone could sustain a charge.

The judgment, delivered by Justice V.Srishananda , highlighted issues related to the jurisdiction of the investigating unit and the handling of evidence, specifically a voice sample sent to a private laboratory.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed with the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District, alleging that an accused had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 to release a vehicle seized during election time. The complainant had obtained a court order for the vehicle's release and met the accused, where the demand was allegedly made.

Based on this complaint, a case was registered, and investigation commenced. While the charge sheet was eventually filed by the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura, it was noted that an attempted trap was unsuccessful. The charge sheet was primarily based on the alleged demand in the presence of eyewitnesses.

The accused subsequently filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) seeking discharge, which was allowed by the Special Judge via an order dated November 16, 2016.

Arguments Presented

Appearing for the revision petitioner (Lokayuktha Police), Sri Prasad B.S. contended that a successful trap was not a mandatory requirement for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He argued that a charge sheet could be filed solely based on the demand for illegal gratification, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024 (5) SCC 629). He argued that the Special Judge's discharge order resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Conversely, Sri M.B.Rajashekar , representing the accused, supported the discharge order. He argued that the charge sheet suffered from "inherent lacunae." He pointed out that the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru Rural District, had no jurisdiction to register the case or conduct the initial investigation, as the alleged incident occurred in Chikkaballapura District. He contended that while a Zero FIR could be registered, the complaint and FIR should have been transferred to the jurisdictional police station for investigation, a procedure recognized by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Ors. and now codified in the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The initial part-investigation by the non-jurisdictional unit, he argued, vitiated the proceedings.

Furthermore, the defence highlighted that the alleged voice sample was sent to a private laboratory ('Truth Labs') instead of the Forensic Science Laboratory of Karnataka. The defence argued that relying on a report from a private agency without first utilizing the state's FSL affected the rights of the accused and questioned the very cognizance of the case.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Srishananda , while acknowledging that the principle laid down in Sita Soren permits prosecution based on demand alone, found that the specific facts and circumstances of the present case were "altogether different." The Court carefully considered the procedural defects raised by the defence.

The High Court agreed that the initial registration and part-investigation by the Bengaluru Rural Lokayuktha Police for an incident occurring in Chikkaballapura, without following the due process of transferring the case to the correct jurisdiction, was a significant flaw. The Court noted: "Admittedly, the part investigation conducted by the Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Bengaluru Rural District was without jurisdiction. Therefore, a fresh investigation should have been conducted by the Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura." The continuation of the investigation by the Chikkaballapura unit based on the partially vitiated process resulted in procedural lapses.

Regarding the evidence, the Court also found fault with the handling of the voice sample: "It is pertinent to note that without exhausting the remedy before the Forensic Laboratory of Karnataka, sending the voice sample to the Truth Labs, which is a private agency and collecting the report which is been placed as a gospel truth in filing the charge sheet has also resulted in affecting the rights of the accused." The Court observed that the very cognizance of the charge sheet, given these defects, might have been questionable.

The High Court concluded that the Special Judge's order allowing the discharge, based on these valid contentions, did not suffer from any "legal infirmity or perversity or patent factual defects" warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the principles from Sita Soren regarding the sufficiency of demand were deemed inapplicable due to the "inherent defects in the charge sheet noted supra."

Accordingly, the Court found the revision petition to be meritless and dismissed it, upholding the discharge of the accused.

The judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to correct procedural norms, including jurisdictional requirements and proper evidence collection protocols, in criminal investigations, particularly in sensitive cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.